UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

[Emily Lake]

Whatever that society views as feminine. I am not going down that rabbit hole.

Do you understand that by this view, and the wishy-washy way it gets sidestepped, you end up either:
a) excluding female humans from the term "woman" because they are butch or they object to the social constraints that have kept women as subjugated dependents for most of human history... or

b) granting the term "woman" to 6'4" penis-having sperminators with beards wearing Levi's and flannel shirts?

FFS, people are people - no matter what society does, there will be those who act like shits. No system or view will be without problems.

Oh, btw, how society or culture views this issue is the reality - whatever the view is.

It's interesting how the people acting like shits so often seem to be of one particular sex class.

 

[Metaphor]

People mistake other people genders. Sex workers have been murdered over it.

The 'trans murder epidemic' is an unsubstantiated claim made by gender cultists to shut other people up.

Also, no sex worker has ever been murdered over their gender. Not once, not ever. A sex worker might have been murdered by a client if the client thought the sex worker was one sex but they turned out to be the other, but this again is part of the 'trans murder epidemic' story that is entirely unsubstantiated.

Is it pro-nouns that bother you? Why must we define sexuality in such a compartmentalized way? It's clearly nuanced. Did you not know any effeminate males in school?

You asked this of Emily and not me, but I will answer with my experience.

Not only did I know the effeminate males at school, I was one of them. Nobody that I knew in high school, including in my friend group, was 'out', but it just happened to turn out that my friend group turned out to have three homos and two bisexuals.

But not any one of us claimed to be a sex we were not. We were effeminate gayboys. We were not and are not and cannot become women.

Honestly I don't know the answer to the issue of sports, I haven't thought about it enough or sought out enough perspectives to form a well researched opinion - but don't think it's reasonable to disqualify an entire swath of the population (their identity) over it.

Nobody is being disqualified. Trans women simply must compete in the proper sex class for them: they are males and they must compete with other males. They can never not be males; mammals cannot change their sex.

Trans men who are not taking testosterone (a performance enhancing drug) are free to compete in either sex class (as indeed any woman ought be free if she can compete).

I gotta say, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously with the "gender cultists" thing. It doesn't even make sense to the discussion.

I'm not saying there is an epidemic of trans murders, but they do happen and there is certainly people who mistake others gender. I know of the studies that show people are excellent at determining gender, but the same studies show when the usual cues are blurred there can be confusion.

I assume above when you say 'gender', you mean 'sex'. People are good at determining the sex of others during brief social encounters, despite the gender cultist insistence that the only way to know somebody's sex is to 'look in their pants'. Gender cultists are obsessed with genitals and will bring them up at any opportunity.

Do you think it's ok to treat a man, who identifies as a women, as a women in a regular social setting?

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. I generally treat men and women similarly in 'regular' social settings. What do you mean more specifically? I generally expect more of males in terms of physical strength, so I'd expect men to help move a couch but not women, though that hardly counts as social.

Do you call a person born as a male but who presents as a woman by their preferred pronoun?

It depends. I will under no circumstances use a neopronoun (xe/xim, bug/bugself, etc) of any kind, not even for a friend. I would end a friendship if I discovered one of my friends had become such an insufferable narcissist.

I will under no circumstances use mixed vanity pronoun combinations like 'she/they'. If you see 'she/they' in somebody's email signature, be prepared for the gender cultist who demanded them to be monitoring your she/they ratio. Such a person is likely to be an obvious female and even obviously feminine-presenting, and if you just naturally use 'she' all the time because of that, she will notice and object.

I might, as a polite fiction, use 'they', or the opposite sex-pronoun 'he' or 'she', where somebody has asked for it and while I am in front of them.

I will also never ever specify my 'preferred' pronouns, and if challenged I will reply "I do not believe in your religion". I am a 6'8" man. I am unmistakeably male. I have a baritone-bass voice that even Elizabeth Holmes would envy. If you cannot figure out my sex, you have bigger problems than accidentally "misgendering" me (which you can't do, because I don't have a gender identity).

Is a “gender cultist” a person who accepts the choice of others decide how they want to present socially?

A gender cultist is somebody who displays most or all of the following (not an exhaustive list)

• Believes that, where society has separated people by sex, we can instead separate them by 'gender identity', and any debate about separating by gender identity instead of sex is labelled as hateful and transphobic
• Uses people with differences of sexual development as pawns to illustrate that sex is 'fuzzy', and then the gender cultists pretend that we've (by 'we' I mean people who are not gender cultists) agreed and that it implies this means we should jettison sex class and substitute 'gender identity' class for it (which is even fuzzier)
• Believes that sexual orientation is based on 'gender identity' and not sex, and that not being attracted to trans men (for example) makes you a transphobe. Also, wanting your male sexual partner to have a penis is transphobic and also a genital fetish (but they're not kink-shaming you, honest).
• Hijack (or, where institutional capture has already occurred, simply use the captured institution) International Women's Day to talk solely about trans women, who are men
• Cannot or will not define the term 'woman' (at least, non-circularly) and say 'I am not going down that rabbit hole' when challenged to define the term
• Believes in literal miracles like that mammals can change sex
• Endorses the wholesale manufacture of memory-holes and State-aided lying, such as the retroactive altering of official documents such as birth certificates so that these birth certificates now contain the wrong sex of a person as a deliberate lie
• Believes people were assigned a gender at birth, instead of what actually happened, which was that your sex was observed and recorded.
• Believe that most people cannot ascertain the sex of a person by sight, or without 'genital inspection' (which they bring up unprompted and endlessly). They are of course completely wrong, since referring to somebody's sex instead of their 'gender' is where all cases of 'misgendering' happen
• Believe that 'dead naming' and 'misgendering' led to hate and violence but are also already literal violence
• Endorse the de-personing language of 'cervix-havers' and 'birthing parents', reducing women to their body parts, a degradation of language that does not happen nearly as much to men (though indeed men are sometimes called 'prostate owners')
• Record the crimes of any man who says he is a woman as a crime perpetrated by a woman
• Pretend that circulating testosterone is the only relevant physical difference between men and women in sports (and some go further to say there are no relevant differences; sport should be entirely separated by gender identity and nothing else)
• Endorse a 26 year old male who, when he was 17, raped a 10 year old girl, being housed in a juvenile female prison
• Believe and promote the idea that there is an epidemic of trans murder victims, but never produce any statistics to back this up
• Endorse the mutilation of children's bodies, most especially the double mastectomies of teenage girls
• Believe that three year olds know their own gender identity. The same three year olds who say 'I am a horse' and neigh at you
• Are casually culturally imperialist with their English-language demands, are casually ableist with their pronoun demands
• Use a combination of the State (via State punishment and laws) and widespread social censure to 'check the thinking' of people who do not believe their religion and who dare to utter things they do believe that is contra gender cultist dogma.

The above list is not exhaustive, as I said, but it's a good start.

 

[Emily Lake]

I apologise for the confusion i may have caused you. I thought you you were one who makes a distinction between female & woman (speaking of people) rather than one who uses them as synonyms.
I can see why a woman would complain about the hijacking of IWD. You are correct to complain.

No worries. I started out trying to accommodate that distinction... but it was all motte and bailey from the activists. When the argument first came out that sex and gender were different, I supported it, because I support the utter demolition of gender roles and sex-based behavioral expectations. But within the last few years, they've been being conflated by the transgender rights activists. Conflated to a point where people are in complete seriousness trying to argue that sex is a social construct that isn't real, that sex is not dichotomous, and that anything that has historically been understood to be separated on the basis of sex somehow was always intended to be separated on the basis of gender... therefore arguing that transwomen are ACTUALLY LITERALLY just as female as a woman, and by dint of that argument are entitled to be in female-only spaces on the basis of their self-declaration of gender identity regardless of whether or not they have a diagnosis or have undergone any medical treatment at all. Oh, and they have ladydicks and are lesbians and if female lesbians aren't willing to suck their ladydicks, it's because those female lesbians are genital fetishists and transphobic bigots who need to reexamine their sexual prejudices and learn to accept penises in their vaginas.

So yeah, I might occasionally kowtow to that language in specific contexts, solely for the sake of courtesy and respect... but no. I dp not consent to the appropriation of the language by which I reference myself. My goodwill toward the movement has been completely exhausted.

On the other hand, I know a handful of transgender people, and most of them are wonderful people. I have no animosity toward transgender people. This is a women's rights issue.

 

[Elixir]

It's interesting how the people acting like shits so often seem to be of one particular sex class.

Sex is a class now?
Okay … carry on

 

[Emily Lake]

Endorse the de-personing language of 'cervix-havers' and 'birthing parents', reducing women to their body parts, a degradation of language that does not happen nearly as much to men (though indeed men are sometimes called 'prostate owners')

To be fair... most of the people who refer to men as "prostate owners" are gender critical feminists who are using that to highlight the stark discrepancy between how men and women are being treated in this push for inclusivity by exclusion of women.

I have been known to refer to men as testiculators, sperminators, and ejaculators to make that point. I would hope that if medical publications or advertisements for men's items began referring to you as "prostate havers" or "penis owners", you would all raise holy hell about the abject and blatant dehumanization involved in that.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's interesting how the people acting like shits so often seem to be of one particular sex class.

Sex is a class now?
Okay … carry on

JFC.

Class: a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes

 

[Metaphor]

For those who are gender cultists and want to get out, or those who are on the threshold, or for those who are ignorant of just how pervasive and insane the gender cultists have become, I recommend Maria MacLachlan's YouTube channel 'Peak Trans'.

https://www.youtube.com/c/PeakTrans

Warning: Do not watch if you are sensitive to epic takedowns of gender cultists and their incoherent ideology

 

[Jarhyn]

It's easy to define a legal term for "exposed to testosterone", and a legal term for "not exposed to testosterone", and "only exposed to a little testosterone" and "hasn't been exposed to testosterone for °°° years".

These can be meaningful delineations in certain legally important contexts.

Steroidal discrimination, I have no problem with as regards prison populations and sports teams.

That's a perfectly coherent and workable approach to take on the issue, if your intention is to utterly screw over people with androgen insensitivity.

How does it screw over people with androgen insensitivity exactly?

It doesn't force them to be housed with what you and a number of other posters quite vociferously point out is a population liable to treated people with androgen insensitivity very badly.

These are documentable provable biological conditions.

Androgen insensitivity at end range is trivially similar to "went on blockers so as to have no meaningful exposure", and "less than this much exposure" can be demonstrated otherwise.

Of course, if they want to be thrown in with the people taking steroids, that's their choice, I guess?

 

[JohnG]

People mistake other people genders. Sex workers have been murdered over it.

The 'trans murder epidemic' is an unsubstantiated claim made by gender cultists to shut other people up.

Also, no sex worker has ever been murdered over their gender. Not once, not ever. A sex worker might have been murdered by a client if the client thought the sex worker was one sex but they turned out to be the other, but this again is part of the 'trans murder epidemic' story that is entirely unsubstantiated.

Is it pro-nouns that bother you? Why must we define sexuality in such a compartmentalized way? It's clearly nuanced. Did you not know any effeminate males in school?

You asked this of Emily and not me, but I will answer with my experience.

Not only did I know the effeminate males at school, I was one of them. Nobody that I knew in high school, including in my friend group, was 'out', but it just happened to turn out that my friend group turned out to have three homos and two bisexuals.

But not any one of us claimed to be a sex we were not. We were effeminate gayboys. We were not and are not and cannot become women.

Honestly I don't know the answer to the issue of sports, I haven't thought about it enough or sought out enough perspectives to form a well researched opinion - but don't think it's reasonable to disqualify an entire swath of the population (their identity) over it.

Nobody is being disqualified. Trans women simply must compete in the proper sex class for them: they are males and they must compete with other males. They can never not be males; mammals cannot change their sex.

Trans men who are not taking testosterone (a performance enhancing drug) are free to compete in either sex class (as indeed any woman ought be free if she can compete).

I gotta say, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously with the "gender cultists" thing. It doesn't even make sense to the discussion.

I'm not saying there is an epidemic of trans murders, but they do happen and there is certainly people who mistake others gender. I know of the studies that show people are excellent at determining gender, but the same studies show when the usual cues are blurred there can be confusion.

I assume above when you say 'gender', you mean 'sex'. People are good at determining the sex of others during brief social encounters, despite the gender cultist insistence that the only way to know somebody's sex is to 'look in their pants'. Gender cultists are obsessed with genitals and will bring them up at any opportunity.

Do you think it's ok to treat a man, who identifies as a women, as a women in a regular social setting?

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. I generally treat men and women similarly in 'regular' social settings. What do you mean more specifically? I generally expect more of males in terms of physical strength, so I'd expect men to help move a couch but not women, though that hardly counts as social.

Do you call a person born as a male but who presents as a woman by their preferred pronoun?

It depends. I will under no circumstances use a neopronoun (xe/xim, bug/bugself, etc) of any kind, not even for a friend. I would end a friendship if I discovered one of my friends had become such an insufferable narcissist.

I will under no circumstances use mixed vanity pronoun combinations like 'she/they'. If you see 'she/they' in somebody's email signature, be prepared for the gender cultist who demanded them to be monitoring your she/they ratio. Such a person is likely to be an obvious female and even obviously feminine-presenting, and if you just naturally use 'she' all the time because of that, she will notice and object.

I might, as a polite fiction, use 'they', or the opposite sex-pronoun 'he' or 'she', where somebody has asked for it and while I am in front of them.

I will also never ever specify my 'preferred' pronouns, and if challenged I will reply "I do not believe in your religion". I am a 6'8" man. I am unmistakeably male. I have a baritone-bass voice that even Elizabeth Holmes would envy. If you cannot figure out my sex, you have bigger problems than accidentally "misgendering" me (which you can't do, because I don't have a gender identity).

Is a “gender cultist” a person who accepts the choice of others decide how they want to present socially?

A gender cultist is somebody who displays most or all of the following (not an exhaustive list)

• Believes that, where society has separated people by sex, we can instead separate them by 'gender identity', and any debate about separating by gender identity instead of sex is labelled as hateful and transphobic
• Uses people with differences of sexual development as pawns to illustrate that sex is 'fuzzy', and then the gender cultists pretend that we've (by 'we' I mean people who are not gender cultists) agreed and that it implies this means we should jettison sex class and substitute 'gender identity' class for it (which is even fuzzier)
• Believes that sexual orientation is based on 'gender identity' and not sex, and that not being attracted to trans men (for example) makes you a transphobe. Also, wanting your male sexual partner to have a penis is transphobic and also a genital fetish (but they're not kink-shaming you, honest).
• Hijack (or, where institutional capture has already occurred, simply use the captured institution) International Women's Day to talk solely about trans women, who are men
• Cannot or will not define the term 'woman' (at least, non-circularly) and say 'I am not going down that rabbit hole' when challenged to define the term
• Believes in literal miracles like that mammals can change sex
• Endorses the wholesale manufacture of memory-holes and State-aided lying, such as the retroactive altering of official documents such as birth certificates so that these birth certificates now contain the wrong sex of a person as a deliberate lie
• Believes people were assigned a gender at birth, instead of what actually happened, which was that your sex was observed and recorded.
• Believe that most people cannot ascertain the sex of a person by sight, or without 'genital inspection' (which they bring up unprompted and endlessly). They are of course completely wrong, since referring to somebody's sex instead of their 'gender' is where all cases of 'misgendering' happen
• Believe that 'dead naming' and 'misgendering' led to hate and violence but are also already literal violence
• Endorse the de-personing language of 'cervix-havers' and 'birthing parents', reducing women to their body parts, a degradation of language that does not happen nearly as much to men (though indeed men are sometimes called 'prostate owners')
• Record the crimes of any man who says he is a woman as a crime perpetrated by a woman
• Pretend that circulating testosterone is the only relevant physical difference between men and women in sports (and some go further to say there are no relevant differences; sport should be entirely separated by gender identity and nothing else)
• Endorse a 26 year old male who, when he was 17, raped a 10 year old girl, being housed in a juvenile female prison
• Believe and promote the idea that there is an epidemic of trans murder victims, but never produce any statistics to back this up
• Endorse the mutilation of children's bodies, most especially the double mastectomies of teenage girls
• Believe that three year olds know their own gender identity. The same three year olds who say 'I am a horse' and neigh at you
• Are casually culturally imperialist with their English-language demands, are casually ableist with their pronoun demands
• Use a combination of the State (via State punishment and laws) and widespread social censure to 'check the thinking' of people who do not believe their religion and who dare to utter things they do believe that is contra gender cultist dogma.

The above list is not exhaustive, as I said, but it's a good start.

 

[Metaphor]

People mistake other people genders. Sex workers have been murdered over it.

The 'trans murder epidemic' is an unsubstantiated claim made by gender cultists to shut other people up.

Also, no sex worker has ever been murdered over their gender. Not once, not ever. A sex worker might have been murdered by a client if the client thought the sex worker was one sex but they turned out to be the other, but this again is part of the 'trans murder epidemic' story that is entirely unsubstantiated.

Is it pro-nouns that bother you? Why must we define sexuality in such a compartmentalized way? It's clearly nuanced. Did you not know any effeminate males in school?

You asked this of Emily and not me, but I will answer with my experience.

Not only did I know the effeminate males at school, I was one of them. Nobody that I knew in high school, including in my friend group, was 'out', but it just happened to turn out that my friend group turned out to have three homos and two bisexuals.

But not any one of us claimed to be a sex we were not. We were effeminate gayboys. We were not and are not and cannot become women.

Honestly I don't know the answer to the issue of sports, I haven't thought about it enough or sought out enough perspectives to form a well researched opinion - but don't think it's reasonable to disqualify an entire swath of the population (their identity) over it.

Nobody is being disqualified. Trans women simply must compete in the proper sex class for them: they are males and they must compete with other males. They can never not be males; mammals cannot change their sex.

Trans men who are not taking testosterone (a performance enhancing drug) are free to compete in either sex class (as indeed any woman ought be free if she can compete).

I gotta say, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously with the "gender cultists" thing. It doesn't even make sense to the discussion.

I'm not saying there is an epidemic of trans murders, but they do happen and there is certainly people who mistake others gender. I know of the studies that show people are excellent at determining gender, but the same studies show when the usual cues are blurred there can be confusion.

I assume above when you say 'gender', you mean 'sex'. People are good at determining the sex of others during brief social encounters, despite the gender cultist insistence that the only way to know somebody's sex is to 'look in their pants'. Gender cultists are obsessed with genitals and will bring them up at any opportunity.

Do you think it's ok to treat a man, who identifies as a women, as a women in a regular social setting?

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. I generally treat men and women similarly in 'regular' social settings. What do you mean more specifically? I generally expect more of males in terms of physical strength, so I'd expect men to help move a couch but not women, though that hardly counts as social.

Do you call a person born as a male but who presents as a woman by their preferred pronoun?

It depends. I will under no circumstances use a neopronoun (xe/xim, bug/bugself, etc) of any kind, not even for a friend. I would end a friendship if I discovered one of my friends had become such an insufferable narcissist.

I will under no circumstances use mixed vanity pronoun combinations like 'she/they'. If you see 'she/they' in somebody's email signature, be prepared for the gender cultist who demanded them to be monitoring your she/they ratio. Such a person is likely to be an obvious female and even obviously feminine-presenting, and if you just naturally use 'she' all the time because of that, she will notice and object.

I might, as a polite fiction, use 'they', or the opposite sex-pronoun 'he' or 'she', where somebody has asked for it and while I am in front of them.

I will also never ever specify my 'preferred' pronouns, and if challenged I will reply "I do not believe in your religion". I am a 6'8" man. I am unmistakeably male. I have a baritone-bass voice that even Elizabeth Holmes would envy. If you cannot figure out my sex, you have bigger problems than accidentally "misgendering" me (which you can't do, because I don't have a gender identity).

Is a “gender cultist” a person who accepts the choice of others decide how they want to present socially?

A gender cultist is somebody who displays most or all of the following (not an exhaustive list)

• Believes that, where society has separated people by sex, we can instead separate them by 'gender identity', and any debate about separating by gender identity instead of sex is labelled as hateful and transphobic
• Uses people with differences of sexual development as pawns to illustrate that sex is 'fuzzy', and then the gender cultists pretend that we've (by 'we' I mean people who are not gender cultists) agreed and that it implies this means we should jettison sex class and substitute 'gender identity' class for it (which is even fuzzier)
• Believes that sexual orientation is based on 'gender identity' and not sex, and that not being attracted to trans men (for example) makes you a transphobe. Also, wanting your male sexual partner to have a penis is transphobic and also a genital fetish (but they're not kink-shaming you, honest).
• Hijack (or, where institutional capture has already occurred, simply use the captured institution) International Women's Day to talk solely about trans women, who are men
• Cannot or will not define the term 'woman' (at least, non-circularly) and say 'I am not going down that rabbit hole' when challenged to define the term
• Believes in literal miracles like that mammals can change sex
• Endorses the wholesale manufacture of memory-holes and State-aided lying, such as the retroactive altering of official documents such as birth certificates so that these birth certificates now contain the wrong sex of a person as a deliberate lie
• Believes people were assigned a gender at birth, instead of what actually happened, which was that your sex was observed and recorded.
• Believe that most people cannot ascertain the sex of a person by sight, or without 'genital inspection' (which they bring up unprompted and endlessly). They are of course completely wrong, since referring to somebody's sex instead of their 'gender' is where all cases of 'misgendering' happen
• Believe that 'dead naming' and 'misgendering' led to hate and violence but are also already literal violence
• Endorse the de-personing language of 'cervix-havers' and 'birthing parents', reducing women to their body parts, a degradation of language that does not happen nearly as much to men (though indeed men are sometimes called 'prostate owners')
• Record the crimes of any man who says he is a woman as a crime perpetrated by a woman
• Pretend that circulating testosterone is the only relevant physical difference between men and women in sports (and some go further to say there are no relevant differences; sport should be entirely separated by gender identity and nothing else)
• Endorse a 26 year old male who, when he was 17, raped a 10 year old girl, being housed in a juvenile female prison
• Believe and promote the idea that there is an epidemic of trans murder victims, but never produce any statistics to back this up
• Endorse the mutilation of children's bodies, most especially the double mastectomies of teenage girls
• Believe that three year olds know their own gender identity. The same three year olds who say 'I am a horse' and neigh at you
• Are casually culturally imperialist with their English-language demands, are casually ableist with their pronoun demands
• Use a combination of the State (via State punishment and laws) and widespread social censure to 'check the thinking' of people who do not believe their religion and who dare to utter things they do believe that is contra gender cultist dogma.

The above list is not exhaustive, as I said, but it's a good start.

View attachment 37770

Yes, you are telling me you are an enabler of gender cultists.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's easy to define a legal term for "exposed to testosterone", and a legal term for "not exposed to testosterone", and "only exposed to a little testosterone" and "hasn't been exposed to testosterone for °°° years".

These can be meaningful delineations in certain legally important contexts.

Steroidal discrimination, I have no problem with as regards prison populations and sports teams.

That's a perfectly coherent and workable approach to take on the issue, if your intention is to utterly screw over people with androgen insensitivity.

How does it screw over people with androgen insensitivity exactly?

They've been exposed to testosterone. The circumstance that it didn't do anything to them because they have nonfunctional receptors for it doesn't change the fact that they were exposed to it. So if you make exposure to it the legal basis for discrimination then you're assigning them the disadvantages of being men -- exclusion from the easy league and the safer prison -- without the usual compensating advantages of greater physical strength and not looking like prey.

It doesn't force them to be housed with what you and a number of other posters quite vociferously point out is a population liable to treated people with androgen insensitivity very badly.

I.e., you don't force them to be housed there, because you've realized "exposed to testosterone" isn't a sensible standard after all. Excellent.

These are documentable provable biological conditions.

Androgen insensitivity at end range is trivially similar to "went on blockers so as to have no meaningful exposure", and "less than this much exposure" can be demonstrated otherwise.

Well sure. So if only "meaningful" were as easily legally definable as "exposed to testosterone" is, then Bob would be your uncle. Testosterone is a chemical. It isn't anything we care about for its own sake. It can only ever serve as a proxy for the relevant distinctions we need to make; and as androgen insensitivity shows, not a particularly reliable proxy. So why use proxies in the first place? Why not put in the extra effort and identify the distinctions that are relevant in and of themselves?

 

[bleubird]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

 

[TomC]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That's really not a simple question.

Under the large majority of circumstances someone else's sex or gender are extremely unimportant. And most of the time people will range from minimally polite to supportive. But this isn't always true.
Sometimes, a person's sex matters more than their gender. Examples would be competitive sports divisions and public spaces where women feel vulnerable (such as public restrooms and changing facilities). Pushing boundaries in those circumstances really does harm women.

And notice I specified "women". For reasons that are both psychological and physical, men (as a group) just aren't as vulnerable to women. I'm a dude, over 6 foot and 200 pounds. There are still women who could kick my ass. But if one joined me in the shower at the city pool I'd be more amused than threatened. I've just never worried about that. My sisters are different. I'm confident that the large majority of women are similarly different. Any male is a big problem, and a penis is the usual way of distinguishing a male.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

It's easy to define a legal term for "exposed to testosterone", and a legal term for "not exposed to testosterone", and "only exposed to a little testosterone" and "hasn't been exposed to testosterone for °°° years".

These can be meaningful delineations in certain legally important contexts.

Steroidal discrimination, I have no problem with as regards prison populations and sports teams.

That's a perfectly coherent and workable approach to take on the issue, if your intention is to utterly screw over people with androgen insensitivity.

How does it screw over people with androgen insensitivity exactly?

They've been exposed to testosterone. The circumstance that it didn't do anything to them because they have nonfunctional receptors for it doesn't change the fact that they were exposed to it. So if you make exposure to it the legal basis for discrimination then you're assigning them the disadvantages of being men -- exclusion from the easy league and the safer prison -- without the usual compensating advantages of greater physical strength and not looking like prey.

It doesn't force them to be housed with what you and a number of other posters quite vociferously point out is a population liable to treated people with androgen insensitivity very badly.

I.e., you don't force them to be housed there, because you've realized "exposed to testosterone" isn't a sensible standard after all. Excellent.

These are documentable provable biological conditions.

Androgen insensitivity at end range is trivially similar to "went on blockers so as to have no meaningful exposure", and "less than this much exposure" can be demonstrated otherwise.

Well sure. So if only "meaningful" were as easily legally definable as "exposed to testosterone" is, then Bob would be your uncle. Testosterone is a chemical. It isn't anything we care about for its own sake. It can only ever serve as a proxy for the relevant distinctions we need to make; and as androgen insensitivity shows, not a particularly reliable proxy. So why use proxies in the first place? Why not put in the extra effort and identify the distinctions that are relevant in and of themselves?

It is entirely legally attainable as a standard to apply "meaningful" as a function of "biological facts", namely the "biological fact" that their cells lack a receptor and blind those cells physically to the hormonal signal, therefore the signal is "physically meaningless" in the context.

Here we measure the chemical relationship present in the system, and we do it based on the testosterone/receptor relationship, because it is exactly that relationship that creates "steroidal effects".

I'm a person of science, though, so if we discover other significantly impactful elements of this relationship as effects these primary concerns, scientific investigation and academic evaluation can adjust the model.

What is certain is that the actual flesh between someone's legs may be "around" the question, it is deleterious to actually look at that rather than the real basis: steroid effects.

 

[Bomb#20]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That cuts both ways, Mr. Jefferson. How does a person's choice of which gender pronoun to use in his own speech when he refers to you pick your pocket or break your leg?

 

[Jarhyn]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That cuts both ways, Mr. Jefferson. How does a person's choice of which gender pronoun to use in his own speech when he refers to you pick your pocket or break your leg?

It says to all of society an implication that they are a liar and a fake of some manner, besmirching the validity of what they say about themselves and how they comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation.

It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn.

It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when you do "minor" things that are nonetheless shitty to others blithely, we call that "petty cruelty" and we all of sensible mind hold a special hateful place in our hearts for those who act that way.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well sure. So if only "meaningful" were as easily legally definable as "exposed to testosterone" is, then Bob would be your uncle. Testosterone is a chemical. It isn't anything we care about for its own sake. It can only ever serve as a proxy for the relevant distinctions we need to make; and as androgen insensitivity shows, not a particularly reliable proxy. So why use proxies in the first place? Why not put in the extra effort and identify the distinctions that are relevant in and of themselves?

It is entirely legally attainable as a standard to apply "meaningful" as a function of "biological facts", namely the "biological fact" that their cells lack a receptor and blind those cells physically to the hormonal signal, therefore the signal is "physically meaningless" in the context.

Here we measure the chemical relationship present in the system, and we do it based on the testosterone/receptor relationship, because it is exactly that relationship that creates "steroidal effects".

I'm a person of science, though, so if we discover other significantly impactful elements of this relationship as effects these primary concerns, scientific investigation and academic evaluation can adjust the model.

So, as a person of science, you can convolve the measured magnitude of the testosterone/receptor relationship over time with a kernel that reflects academia's best current evaluation of the time discounted impact this relationship has on various concerns. So when Emily says her primary concern is X and Jimmy says his primary concern is Y and Keith says his primary concern is that the two of them better work it out and then shut up about it or else he's going to pull over and throw both their concerns out of his car, how, as a person of science, are you going to use your convolution integral to settle the dispute?

What is certain is that the actual flesh between someone's legs may be "around" the question, it is deleterious to actually look at that rather than the real basis: steroid effects.

If that's certain, then you're probably going to need to mansplain to Emily that since looking at the actual flesh between someone's legs is deleterious to your concerns, it scientifically follows that the actual flesh between someone's legs can't possibly be significantly impactful to her concerns unless her concerns aren't primary, because you're a person of science.

 

[Bomb#20]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That cuts both ways, Mr. Jefferson. How does a person's choice of which gender pronoun to use in his own speech when he refers to you pick your pocket or break your leg?

It says to all of society an implication that they are a liar and a fake of some manner, besmirching the validity of what they say about themselves and how they comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation.

It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn.

It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when you do "minor" things that are nonetheless <expletive deleted> to others blithely, we call that "petty cruelty" and we all of sensible mind hold a special hateful place in our hearts for those who act that way.

And when your neighbor says there are twenty gods or no god, it says to all of society an implication that you who say the One True God revealed Himself to you are a liar or a fake, or a delusional madman, besmirching the validity of what you say about yourself and how you comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation. It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn. It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when your neighbor does "minor" things that you and his other neighbors perceive as nasty to their in-group blithely, you call that "petty cruelty" and you all consider yourselves of sensible mind when you hate him for it.

So now that we've established that atheists are petty cruel people who deserve to be socially rejected by Christians and Christians are of sensible mind for doing it, that means we've established that some of us don't actually give a rat's ass about the "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." test. Such people should refrain from invoking it.

 

[Bomb#20]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That cuts both ways, Mr. Jefferson. How does a person's choice of which gender pronoun to use in his own speech when he refers to you pick your pocket or break your leg?

It says to all of society an implication that they are a liar and a fake of some manner, besmirching the validity of what they say about themselves and how they comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation.

It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn.

... we call that "petty cruelty" and we all of sensible mind hold a special hateful place in our hearts for those who act that way.

There's another aspect to this besides the matter of pockets and bones. When a man who presents as male and hasn't had surgery or estrogen chooses to put his gender choice above the usual preference of women for public toilets to be sex-separated rather than gender-identification-separated, it says to all of society that they are liars or fakes or bigots or feminazis or hysterical women of some manner, besmirching the validity of what they say about themselves and how they comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation. It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn. That you regard the one petty cruelty as grounds for hate and the other as an exercise of a human right appears to turn on trans folk being more in your monkeysphere than women are.

 

[Jarhyn]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That cuts both ways, Mr. Jefferson. How does a person's choice of which gender pronoun to use in his own speech when he refers to you pick your pocket or break your leg?

It says to all of society an implication that they are a liar and a fake of some manner, besmirching the validity of what they say about themselves and how they comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation.

It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn.

It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when you do "minor" things that are nonetheless <expletive deleted> to others blithely, we call that "petty cruelty" and we all of sensible mind hold a special hateful place in our hearts for those who act that way.

And when your neighbor says there are twenty gods or no god, it says to all of society an implication that you who say the One True God revealed Himself to you are a liar or a fake, or a delusional madman, besmirching the validity of what you say about yourself and how you comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation. It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn. It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when your neighbor does "minor" things that you and his other neighbors perceive as nasty to their in-group blithely, you call that "petty cruelty" and you all consider yourselves of sensible mind when you hate him for it.

So now that we've established that atheists are petty cruel people who deserve to be socially rejected by Christians and Christians are of sensible mind for doing it, that means we've established that some of us don't actually give a rat's ass about the "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." test. Such people should refrain from invoking it.

Yes, because reality itself shows them a liar. But there's nothing to "lie about" when you are saying "I am a woman" because "woman" is not clearly definable. Unlike such things as "has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor", and "has x level of testosterone", which are measurable aspects of a system, "woman" is what is known as a "cluster concept".

The comorbidity of concepts within that cluster appear to a wide array of very vocal assholes who mistake the near-complete intersection of them to actually form a "well defined concept"... but it does not.

Now, I can always politely ask the crazies to show me some evidence that the one true God revealed themselves to the crazy person. Usually, they just stand there looking dumb.

They besmirch themselves, and how!

It is always well and good to ask for evidence of claims and provenance of logic.

In many cases, atheists who besmirch people as crazy rather than figuring out how to make the crazy besmirch itself ARE in fact being petty, cruel, hateful, and so can go fuck off for all I care.

They deserve to be socially rejected as much as the folks who shit on the floor with their craziness and failure to show their work and evidence.